Theories of Romantic Relationships

These YouTube Videos are fantastic and are delivered by a guy from a website called PSYCHBOOST. He has videos on all the topics, so of you like these videos, check out his website and YouTube channel.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Social psychologists Thibault and Kelly (1959) describe romantic relationships using the economic terminology of profit (rewards) and loss (costs). They claim that partners in relationships strive to maximise rewards (things like companionship, praise, emotional support, sex) and minimise costs (stress, arguments, compromises, time commitments). This is known as the min-max principle.

Notions of rewards and costs are subjective (what is considered very costly by one person, can be seen as low cost or even a reward by another); costs also tend to change over time (what is considered costly at the beginning of the relationships seems less so as relationships develop).

People also use levels of comparison to assess how profitable their relationships are.

There are two ways in which we measure the profit in a romantic relationship:

The first, the Comparison Level (CL), is essentially the amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get. It develops out of our experiences of previous relationships which feed into our expectations of the current one. It is also influenced by social norms that determine what is widely considered, within a culture, to be a reasonable level of reward. This is often reflected in the media, in books, films, and TV programmes. Over time, we go through more relationships and more experience of social norms, so our CL changes as we acquire more information.

We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high. There is an obvious link with self-esteem here. Someone with low self-esteem will have a low CL and will therefore be satisfied with gaining just a small profit (or even a loss) from a relationship. Someone with higher self-esteem will believe they are worth a lot more.

Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt), is the grass greener? I call this the Love Island effect as this states that when you are in a relationship, you will look at other people and judge whether they could offer you more than you current relationship. Should I stay, or should I go? This happens every time Love Islanders chose to switch or stayed coupled up.

According to Social Exchange Theory, people will break up with their partner if they see that there are better alternatives, but they will stay with their current relationships as long as they find them more profitable than the alternatives.

Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Strengths:

• Useful applications: One example of this is Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), during which partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday interactions and decrease the proportion of negative ones, by changing negative behaviour patterns. According to research about two-thirds of couples that were treated using IBCT reported that their relationships have significantly improved and they were feeling much happier as a result of it. This shows that SET can be used to help distressed couples in real life, thus demonstrating its real-world application and benefit for relationships.
• Research to support: Rusbult (1983) asked 17 males and 17 females to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period concerning rewards and costs associated with relationships. She found that as the relationship progressed, costs and rewards were considered a lot more. In addition, costs and rewards were considered against alternatives, but the alternatives became less attractive over time. This supports SET because it suggests that people consider ending or continuing a relationship by assessing alternate options and by making a judgement on their overall profit. However, this research uses questionnaires and the sample is small and only uses people who are in heterosexual relationships.

Weaknesses:

• Alternative explanation: SET has been criticised for having poor explanatory power. Clark and Mills (2011) argue that while cost and rewards may be true of work interactions between colleagues it is rarely the case in romantic relationships. They argue that in romantic relationships, rewards are distributed freely without necessarily keeping a score. This shows that SET is an unrealistic explanation of romantic relationships. Furthermore, other theories such as equity theory poses more importance on fairness rather than tallying cost and rewards. This weakens the credibility of SET, as it seems that SET cannot account for the majority of relationships.

• Subjective & Nomothetic: Social learning theory also takes a nomothetic approach to studying relationships as it is trying to uncover universal laws of how relationships are maintained that would be applied to all couples. The ways in which relationships are maintained are all different as reward and cost is always subjective and will vary from couple to couple. For example, one person may find lots of praise from a partner rewarding, but another person could find it annoying, making it difficult to measure.  This nomothetic theory is difficult to generalise to all relationships as it doesn’t take into account individual differences which means that it may not successfully apply to all couples. Therefore, an in-depth idiographic approach maybe more beneficial. as people have individual differences and in-depth idiographic approach may be better suited to studying the maintenance of romantic relationships in general.
• Reductionist and Alternative Explanations: SET assumes that from the beginning of a relationship partners keep some kind of tally of profit and loss, and return reward for reward and cost for cost. Equity theory suggests that it is not a balance of rewards and costs, but rather perceived fairness of relationships, that keeps partners happy and committed to the relationships. This weakens the explanatory power of SET, as it seems that SET can only explain a limited range of romantic relationships.
• Reductionist: SET oversimplifies complex human romantic relationships − does not account for selfless behaviour/relationships. According to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship. However, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships (for example, when one partner is chronically ill) without feeling dissatisfied. As a result, SET is very limited; it cannot establish with significant certainty whether a person will feel happy or unhappy in a relationship, based on the costs and rewards they are getting from it.
• Cultural bias/Ethnocentrism/Outdated: SET can be argued to be culturally biased because it is based on research in western societies e.g. Rusbult. Therefore this theory may not accurately explain romantic relationships in collectivist cultures.

Equity Theory of Romantic Relationships

Equity doesn’t mean equality:

It is not about the number of rewards and costs, but rather about the balance between them; if a person puts a lot into a relationship and receives a lot, it will feel fair to them. Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, and that rewards are distributed fairly (not necessarily equally). This involves making trade-offs.

Maintenance of relationships occurs through balance and stability. Relationships where individuals put in more than they receive, or receive more than they put in, are inequitable, leading to dissatisfaction and could lead to the relationship ending. The recognition of inequity within a relationship presents a chance for a relationship to be saved – that is, maintained further by making adjustments so that there is a return to equity.

Relationships may alternate between periods of perceived balance and imbalance, with individuals being motivated to return to a state of equity. The greater the perceived imbalance, the greater the efforts to realign the relationship, so long as a chance of doing so is perceived to be viable i.e. do they believe the effort will pay off in the long run. However, inequity can also be addressed using a cognitive approach. An individual can change their perceptions of cost and rewards so that they perceive the relationship as more equitable. Nothing has changed at all in the sense that: you are still the one who always arranges dates and activities together. It is always you that apologies, and it is always you that cleans the house and pays the bills. However, this is no longer seen as a cost and has now become normal to you – it’s accepted.

Have a look at this couple below, in terms of SET it may seem that the cost and reward are not balanced, but in terms of Equity, it offers a different perspective.

Evaluation of Equity Theory

Strengths:

• Research to support: Stafford and Canary (2006) In their study over 200 married couples completed questionnaires on relationship equity and satisfaction. They found that partners who perceived their relationships as fair and balanced experienced the most satisfaction. Explain: Having research to support helps to improve the credibility of the theory, as it demonstrates that equity has an influence on romantic relationships. Consequence: As a consequence, this means equity theory can be better generalised to real life romantic relationships and still hold true. Challenge: In addition, Equity theory is further supported by its successful application in couples therapy. This strengthens the explanatory power of equity theory it because it has been applied to real romantic relationships and has shown to make a direct impact.
• Useful applications: Can be used in relationship counselling to help identify whether fairness is perceived and how it can be improved.

Weaknesses:

• Gender bias – There are important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness that Equity Theory ignores. Evidence: Researchers such as Sprecher (1992) found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting. In addition, other research suggests that women are more focused on relationships, and so are more sensitive to injustices. Explain: These results indicate clear gender differences between males and females and highlight the importance of taking this into consideration. Consequence: By ignoring gender differences, equity theory may not accurately portray how males and females view equity in a relationship. Challenge: However, by trying to understand the separate views of males and females could result in an alpha bias and exaggerate differences between males and females that do not actually exist.
• Research that contradicts/oppose Equity Theory: For example, Berg and McQuinn (1986), conducted a longitudinal study on 38 dating couples. They didn’t find any increase in equity over time, but discovered that a high level of self-disclosure and perceived equity in the beginning of the relationships was a strong predictor that a couple would stay in their relationship, and low equity in the beginning was a reliable predictor of a break-up. In other words, it seems that perceived fairness is either present or not in relationships  from the start, and does not develop with time, contrary  to the prediction of Equity Theory. These findings oppose the central claim of the theory, and contradict the idea that equity increases over time, after the initiation of a romantic relationship.
• Nomothetic approach: Equity Theory, like other theories within the relationships topic, proposes a universal theory of romantic relationships. However, it could be argued that it is not possible to assess equity in terms of loving relationships, as a lot of the input is emotional and unquantifiable.
• Ethnocentrism & Cultural bias: Equity is more important in Western cultures than non-Western cultures. Research has found that both men and women from collectivist cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationships when they were over-benefitting from it, not when the relationships were fair.

Rusbult’s Investment Model

The Investment Model was put forward by Rusbult et al. (2001), as a development of Social Exchange Theory. The rationale for developing SET further was that many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards, so there must be some other factors that keep them together. Rusbult’s Investment Model investigates what these other factors might be.

According to Rusbult’s proposal, there are 3 major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: 

• satisfaction level – based on comparison level from SET – costs and rewards
• comparison with alternatives – based on SET
• investment size.

Satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives:

Satisfaction is based on the concept of comparison level. Comparison Level (CL), is essentially the amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get. It develops out of our experiences of previous relationships and social norms. People will have a higher level of satisfaction with relationships if they have more rewards (companionship, attention, emotional support) and fewer costs (arguments, time), when comparing them to previous relationships and social norms.

Comparison with alternatives is based on the idea that individuals will tend to be committed to relationships if, when asking themselves, ‘Is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?’ the answer is ‘no’. Alternatives can include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all, as well as finding a new partner.

However, for Rusbult the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment. Rusbult realised that individuals stay in relationships even when costs outweighed rewards and more attractive alternatives were presented, so what else influences people to stay together? It can’t just be as simple as cost and reward, and comparing alternatives.

Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave relationships. The model proposes two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic.

Intrinsic investment: comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure e.g. telling them personal things about yourself that you haven’t told anybody else.

Extrinsic investment: refers to the things that are brought to people’s life through the relationships, such as children, friends and shared memories.

Because both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in relationships. Therefore, it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.

Evaluation of Rusbult’s Investment Model

Strengths:

• Research to support: A longitudinal study using a large sample of married couples over an 18 months period found that stability of the relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners. Further research found that women tended to identify satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment when justifying the decision to stay with their partner. Finally, a meta analysis study using 52 studies supported the theory satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment i.e. long-lasting relationships. The numerous pieces of research supporting the the investment model strengthens the theory due to replication and consistency of findings.
• Culturally relative: Culture bias doesn’t seem to be an issue for the Investment Model. Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) and in Taiwan (collectivist culture). Furthermore, the Investment Model, as an explanation of relationship maintenance, is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples, etc. This suggests the universality of the Investment Model, making it applicable to wide range of relationships.
• Good Explanatory power: The Investment Model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. According to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few. Research into abusive relationships supports this idea. For example, Rusbult and Maltz, in their study of ‘battered’ women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn’t have any appealing alternatives. This shows that the Investment Model can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain, thus increasing the Investment Model’s application to a variety of relationships.

Weaknesses:

• Lack of Cause & Effect The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships.
• Research to support uses questionnaires and interviews: The use of interviews and questionnaires can reduce the validity of the data. This is because people may not be honest about their relationships and the data is retrospective which may also lead to inaccuracies. If the data to support the theory lacks validity, the theory can be questioned as it is not supported by research with sound validity.
• Reductionist: Could be argued to explain relationships in a oversimplified way. By doing this the investment model may be missing key factors that play a role. For example, relationship stability could also involve future plans, rather than just current investments. Relationships are extremely complex, and any theory which tries to simplify it will ultimately miss contributing factors. Although, the investment theory is more holistic in comparison to equity theory and SET.

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

Is the breakdown of a relationship a one-off event that just happens when one partner decides to dump the other? Steven Duck (2007) suggested that relationship dissolution is a process that consists of four distinctive stages.

Phase 1: Intra-psychic stage – This is the phase that focuses on the cognitive process of relationship breakdown. They know that they are dissatisfied with their relationship, and they spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons for this dissatisfaction and possible ways forward. This stage focuses on a person’s internal thought process that occurs before confronting the partner. Before a person moves to the next stage, they reach a threshold of thinking  ‘I can’t stand this anymore’.

Phase 2: Dyadic stage – occurs when a person confronts their partner and voices their dissatisfaction. At this stage there are a lot of complaints coming from the partner initiating the break-up and there are a lot of arguments! These arguments tend to involve issues with equity, and lack of commitment. The threshold that is reached at this stage is: ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’. However, there are two outcomes in this stage: continue to break up, or decide to make it work.

Phase 3: Social stage – If up to this point, the couple generally kept their disagreements private, at the next phase they involve friends and relatives and make their distress public. This is the social phase of relationship breakdown. According to Duck, once the conflict reaches this stage, it is more difficult for a couple to mend their relationship: friends and family will take sides, intervene in the couple’s relationship and offer advice, which makes reconciliation much more problematic. The threshold at this stage is ‘I mean it’. The social phase usually leads to the break up of the relationship.

Phase 4: Grave-dressing stage – Having left their partner, both sides construct their version of why their relationship broke down, usually minimising their faults and maximising their partner’s, but at the same time trying to show themselves as trustworthy and loyal in order to attract a new partner. The term grave signifies the end of the relationship and readiness to start a new one. The threshold here is, unsurprisingly, ‘It’s time to start a new life’.

Extension: In 2006, Duck and his colleague Rollie proposed an addition to the model: the resurrection phase. They suggested that at this stage people move beyond the pain and distress associated with ending the relationship, and experience personal growth. 

Existence of the resurrection stage was supported by Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study; participants (undergraduates who had recently experienced a break-up) reported experiencing personal growth as a result of it, as well as emotional distress.

Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model

Strengths:

• Research to support: The existence and role of the break-up phases described in Duck’s model are supported by scientific research. Evidence: For example, Tashiro and Frasier (2003) used self-reports with 92 undergraduates aged between 18-35 years showed that viewing the situation, rather than own faults, as being responsible for ending the relationships, helps people to see the break-up in a more positive light and move on. Explain: This supports the grave-dressing stage of the Duck’s phase model where the individuals construct their version of why their relationship broke down, usually minimising their faults and maximising their partner’s. Consequence: Consequently, due to this supporting evidence, we can be more confident that this theory is correct, and as the theory is supported by research that looked at a wide range of ages, we can be more confident in applying this theory to explaining individuals break ups outside of the study.
• Useful applications: Duck’s model has useful applications, especially in relation to couples’ counselling. Couples may be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they are currently in. For example, for a person in the intra-psychic phase it may be more useful to shift their attention to the positive aspects of their partner’s personality, while for a couple in the dyadic phase communication about dissatisfaction and ways to balance relationships is crucial. This shows that Duck’s model of relationship breakdown can be used successfully to help couples contemplating break-up to improve their relationships and stay together.

Weaknesses:

• Research to support is weak: Point: Most of the research examining relationship breakdown is based on retrospective data, using questionnaires or interviews to ask participants about the break-up some time after it happened. Evidence: For example, Duck’s model was developed mainly through self-reports. Explain: People’s memories of the event may not be accurate, and may also be influenced by their current situation, which means that their answers may lack validity. Consequence: This means Duck’s phase model, even though it seems to be supported by research, it may lack external validity because it does not necessarily describe how break-up happens in real life, weakening the model’s ability to present an accurate picture of relationship breakdown.
• Individual differences: The social phase is greatly affected by individual differences, especially in relation to age. Evidence: Dickson (1995) found that while friends and relatives tend to see teenagers’ break-ups as less serious and wouldn’t put much effort into reconciling partners, the ending of relationships by older couples is seen as more distressing and those close to the couple put more effort into bringing them back together. Explain: This shows that Duck’s model won’t necessarily apply to all couples which limits generalisability. Consequence: As a consequence, the Duck phase model is limited because it suggests that the model may not be able to accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship.
• The model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma. However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement. This makes the relationship difficult to end, which means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck. As a result, Duck’s model is culturally biased as it assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case.
• Duck’s model successfully describes how relationships break down, but not why. As most stage theories, it focuses on establishing universal principles of behaviour that would be true for all people (nomothetic approach). However, as shown above, the break-up process is greatly affected by partners’ individual differences, and cultural norms and values, so a more detailed idiographic approach may reveal individual reasons for break-up and the experiences different couples go through, giving psychologists a better understanding of the issue.